Apple again filed a motion to block Samsung from selling about two-dozen products, saying it needs to protect itself from future harm. One of Apple’s justifications for the injunction: No one is going to get harmed, since the products aren’t for sale anymore.

The filing Thursday in a California court marks the latest maneuver in a long-running patent war between the smartphone giants.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled unanimously that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the original trial and a retrial, made errors last year when she denied Apple’s request for a court injunction against the infringing Samsung products. This ruling opened the door for Apple to push again for a permanent injunction.

Apple has asked for a motion hearing Jan. 30 or soon after.

Apple argues in its motion that the injunction wouldn’t harm public interest – a criteria that needs to be met for an injunction to pass – because Samsung has stopped selling the particular models found to infringe. “An injunction would present minimal, if any, disruption to the public,” Apple’s lawyers wrote.

At the same time, Apple said it wants an injunction because it will provide “the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung” if the Korean company introduces devices that are “not colorably different” from the patent-infringing products. This is made necessary, Apple writes, because Samsung frequently brings new products to market.

It’s kind of a headscratcher: Apple’s entitled to an injunction because it’s not a big deal, and the injunctions is necessary because it might be a big deal?

A Samsung spokesman declined to comment, while Apple wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Florian Mueller, a patent analyst writing at FOSS Patents, said it is important to focus on “asserted patents and not the accused products” that are no longer commercially relevant. An injunction gives Apple more legal recourse to go after any future products that it suspects of infringing its patents.